MINSHALL / WEAVER Marriage Record

7 replies [Last post]
mikey_minshall
Offline
Last seen: 5 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: Thursday, 17-05-2012

Hi,

My ancestor John MINSHALL (Abt. 1811) appears to have married a Mary WEAVER in 1829 in Prees, Shropshire.  I can find a record in the England, Select Marriages, 1538-1973 database (FHL Film No. 506791 / 2:W8P734) but wondered if anyone is able to provide any more information either via a local lookup or from their research?

I have completely hit a brick wall currently and would really like to know more about this family.  I believe that they had 4 children: William (1831-1894), John (1840-?), Mary (1846-?) and Jane (?-?).

If my information that I have so far is correct, the entire family disappear from the census records after 1851. I have some information that John and possibly Jane appear in prison records but I am not yet ready to accept that these are definitiely my ancestors without clarification.

Any help is much appreciated, Mike

mikey_minshall
Offline
Last seen: 5 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: Thursday, 17-05-2012

The family I am looking at lived on Shrewsbury Street, Prees during the 1851 Census if that helps for clarity.

Thanks again, Mike

Gwynne Chadwick
Offline
Last seen: 10 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: Sunday, 19-06-2011

Hi,
This looks like the family;
1861 Census.
John MARSCHALL [as transcribed]  age 50 or 58, a Labourer, born in Prees, with his wife Mary and two children John & Mary living in Hollinswood, Dawley.

1871 Census.
John MINSHALL, age 58 [transcribed as 38] a widower, a Labourer, born in Prees, boarding in Old Park, Dawley.

1881 Census.
John MINSHALL, age 70, a widower, a Labourer, born in Prees, boarding in Wombridge, Wellington.
 
1891 Census.
John MINSHALL, age 78, a widower, a Gardener, born in Prees, boarding in Wombridge, Wellington.
 
Gwyn
Gwynne Chadwick
Offline
Last seen: 10 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: Sunday, 19-06-2011

Hi,
Marriage in Prees on 10th August 1829 of John MINSHALL to Mary WEAVER, both of the Parish of Prees, by Banns. In the presence of Ann MINSHALL and William Drurry [comment - William probably isn't related. He appears to also witness many other ceremonies]

Gwynne

 

Michael J Hulme
Offline
Last seen: 28 min 4 sec ago
Joined: Saturday, 4-06-2011

Hello Mike

Have you seen what appears to be your family in the 1841 census?  This throws up more problems than answers.  They were apparently living in Shrewsbury Street, Prees (HO.107/900 Book 12 Folio 12 Page 17) and this shows that Jane appears to be their eldest child born about 1826/7.  I can't see a baptism for her at the moment and this date doesn't fit well with the marriage to Mary in 1929.

Is there a chance that John had been married previously, widowed and remarried to Mary?  The marriage entry to Mary doesn't tell us one way or the other.  You can see the marriage on the Find my Past web site.  Fee payable.

Mike

Gwynne Chadwick
Offline
Last seen: 10 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: Sunday, 19-06-2011

Well spotted Mike H.

I see that Jane WEAVER married James DULSON on 19th March 1849,
a spinster of full age. She listed her father as John MINSHALL.

Gwynne

 

mikey_minshall
Offline
Last seen: 5 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: Thursday, 17-05-2012

Thanks Gwynne, Mike H,

The 1861 census record would make some sense as by then, John's son William would have been 30 years old and also appears in Dawley.  Foiled by a transcription discrepancy.

This strand of my family are all called John or William, invariably have children called John and William and everyone marries a Mary so unscrambling these records is tough.  

It is a good call on Jane as I hadn't considered that her being 14 in 1841 would make John and Mary only 16 years old at the time of her birth. Mary may even have been younger. 

Mike

macwil
Offline
Last seen: 10 weeks 1 day ago
Joined: Tuesday, 27-10-2015

Have you taken into account that in the 1841 census the ages of anyone over 15 were round down to the nearest 5? So John & Mary were aged between 30 and 34 meaning that at the time of Jane's birth they would be between 16 and 20, lookin at the ages quoted by Gwynne in the later census I would favour the higher end.

One must remember that people were not so obsessed with their ages in those days as officialdom (and consequently us) is today.

Regards,

Malcolm.